The following excerpt explains the scope and methodology of the 300-page genealogical section of CAROLINA SCOTS:>PART TWOGENEALOGY OF REPRESENTATIVE CAROLINA SCOTS FAMILIES > CHAPTER FOUR SOME 1739 ARGYLL COLONY FAMILIES AND OTHER EARLY SETTLERS IN MID-CUMBERLAND COUNTY >Three hundred and fifty men, women and children came on the first wave of the Argyll Colony 250 years ago and it is possible, though not yet established, that another significant number joined them as soon as 1740. Over the next century, a torrent of Scots flooded the area, so that today there are more people of Highland descent in the Carolinas than remain in the Highlands of Scotland herself. In fact, given the vast numbers who came, it would take thousands of pages in a multi-volume series to begin to cover them. Carolina Genealogical Tradition, Its Scope and Limits >Thus first, let me state that not all of the Highlander families who remained in Carolina are included in this genealogical section. For one thing, not only were the numbers so vast, but among some families, considerable information has been lost over the generations owing to wars, fires, moves or lack of interest. What I have done here is to concentrate on those families either known to me one way or another, or in many cases, not personally known, but who had genealogical information readily available. >Undoubtedly many, many important families are not included, and that is simply because of the author's problem in not having the historical material available at this time. I wish to make it very clear that there has been absolutely no "hidden agenda" of choosing families which somehow may be deemed to be of more significance (or for that matter, of less significance) than any others. People are listed in this genealogy who were rich, poor, and somewhere in the middle (as is the case with the majority). Some were highly educated, some were not; a few were famous, most were not. I have done my best to be fair, careful and impartial in presenting this information, and trust that it will be charitably received as such. > Secondly, if sufficient interest should be shown in this volume, perhaps there could be another edition at a later time. If that be the case, then the author will be delighted to include any and all other families who can present their historical material. At best, this book is only a first stage. Whether it goes beyond it will depend on the response of the public, and perhaps most of all on the present day Scots of Carolina. Methodology >Thirdly, let me mention the method I have followed in presenting these representative genealogical notices. It of course would be impossible to attempt to trace all the descendants of the original settlers in a book such as this. What I have tried to do is to list the first two or three (or possibly four, in some cases) generations, and give references which will help the genealogical researcher find more information (insofar as such resources are known to me). Thus I hope the book will be helpful to many people in this regard, if in no other. > Fourthly, a concern for strict historical integrity requires me to underline the point that much of the genealogical section of this volume is presented in the form of folk history. That is, I have not attempted to document, from State, Church or Bible records, every name, date and relationship in these chapters, which would of course need to be done in order to put this material in the class of an officially accredited genealogical record. Therefore, I cannot and do not claim to have provided acceptable documentary proof for every fact in the genealogical section. > A fair question must immediately be raised: what then is the value of this mass of genealogical material? The answer is simple: the validity of what I repeat here depends directly on the validity of the sources from which I have compiled my information. I have tried to document with the greatest care exactly where my information comes from, so that those who wish to research a particular family will know where to go in order to assess the material I have used as well as to get ideas for other potential sources. But how would I assess the genealogical material from which I have drawn these chapters? > I have been working with this sort of material for over twenty five years, and it is my opinion that most of what I have used is well grounded historically and genealogically, although I do not doubt that there will inevitably be mistakes here and there. Certainly, I have not included any single fact which I knew to be wrong, and matters which I knew to be questionable are appropriately marked. Sources such as Purcell's Lumber River Scots, Admiral Patterson's Highland Scots Pattersons of North Carolina, Kenneth Kelly's McIver Family of North Carolina, General Carmichael's The Scottish Highlander Carmichaels of the Carolinas, Rozella McLeod's McLeods of Tuckahoe & Horses Creek, and many other similar volumes are either well documented themselves, or have been generally confirmed in their accuracy by those who have used them over the decades. Probably the least accurate as to detail is the history of the Moore County Camerons (and I have been able to correct much of it by cross reference to McLeods, McIvers, Blues and others), but even it is generally reliable in giving us a useful outline and structure for the main heads of the Cameron families over several generations. > We must remember that in the Cape Fear Valley we are dealing with people of Highland background, who were part of a centuries' long oral culture. That is to say, vast amounts of Highland Gaelic poetry, stories, music, and particularly history and genealogy had been traditionally committed to memory and passed down orally from generation to generation, not unlike the remarkable oral tradition of Confucian China. In my viewpoint, material that comes from an oral rather than from a written tradition is much less reliable and frequently wrong, but not totally unworthy of consideration. Obviously, the oral tradition is much more open to exaggeration and historical abuse than is the written, and therefore it must be treated with much greater reserve. Above all, integrity requires that an oral fact must be stated to be such so that written documentation is never claimed for it, unless of course further research does confirm it. > In sum, I feel that great care and reserve, but not total scepticism is called for when dealing with Highland and Carolina Scots oral-based genealogies. Families who have lived on the same land for generations-at least in the pre-television age-generally could be relied upon to know a fair amount about their ancestry and connections. A good illustration of this would be the Genealogical Record of the Descendants of Col. Alexander McAllister by Rev. D. S. McAllister, who got much of his information from an elderly aunt. > It is obvious that further research in Cumberland County records would be necessary to establish each name, date and relationship alleged by McAllister, but my point is that it would be a great loss not to present such genealogies to a wider public. Otherwise, many valuable clues for the family history researcher would be unavailable, and much of our valued cultural tradition-even though it must properly be termed "folk history"-would be lost. I think there is no problem with presenting such material as long as the nature of the material is made clear. The serious genealogical researcher will then be able to make use of a much of it, as he or she does further research in written sources. This material could be one step along the way in establishing an accredited family history based on generally acceptable genealogical procedures. > Possibly the most important part of the book for the genealogical researcher will be the 72 page index. If names and sections seem confusing in these genealogical chapters, the index should help you locate those in whom you are interested, presuming they are included. Even if they are not, material on related families may well help you know where to look next. That has certainly been the intention of the author in this work which of necessity must be all too limited. Format >I have formatted these genealogies in a straightforward, common sense way so that the three or four generations covered would be clearly and easily discernible. I have basically followed J. E. Purcell's approach in his Lumber River Scots (which he seems to have taken from W. A. McLeod's History of the Currie Family) of putting the first generation of descendants from the emigrant parents in capital letters after a Roman numeral, the next generation in lower case letters following the letters of the alphabet, and the next generation is lower case following the normal Arabic numerals. > One of the greatest values of this approach is that every one of the literally hundreds of different family groups has been formatted alike, so that with relative ease one can survey the various Carolina Scots generations up and down the Cape Fear and Pee Dee Valleys in a uniform manner. The material from which these generations were compiled presented them in a multitude of different ways, so that listing them all here in the same format prevents considerable frustration and loss of time, if not confusion, for the reader. Order >The order in which I list the families is largely determined by the geographical locality in which they settled (or at least in which they have lived for most of their time in the state). But instead of starting downriver, let us say in the Brown Marsh section and in lower Bladen County, I have chosen to begin in the middle, that is, in mid-Cumberland County, where most of the Argyll Colony first settled in 1739/40, since this volume was written in commemoration of their 250th anniversary of settlement. > We will first cover much of central and upper Cumberland County (and what is now Harnett), then go up and over to Moore County, and back downstream to the eastern section of Cumberland (and present Hoke), Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond Counties, and then further down to lower Bladen, and finally across the state line to the Pee Dee section of South Carolina, significant sections of which, are culturally an extension of the Cape Fear Valley. A few will be mentioned in surrounding territories, and in quite a few cases there will be frequent overlapping between counties and sections. While there will be exceptions, this is still the general rule of order. THE ARGYLL COLONY 1739 >We will begin, as we have stated, with a list of passengers travelling in the Argyll Colony. Of the numbers who landed in late September, 1739, these are the fifty-two names which are considered verified. l. Thomas Armstrong 2. Alexander Clark 3. John Clark 4. Archibald Clark 5. Alexander Colvin 6. Alexander McAlester 7. Coll McAlester 8. Hector McAlester 9. James McAlester 10. John McAlester 12. Hugh McLaughlin 11. Alexander McKay 13.James McLachlan 14.John McPherson 15.Archibald Buie 16.Duncan Buie 17.Daniel Buie 18.Hugh McCranie 19.Murdoch McCranie 20.Duncan Campbell 21.Archibald Campbell 22.Edward Connor 23.Neill McNeill 24.Nector McNeill 25.Archibald McNeill 26.Lachlan McNeill 27.Hector McNeill(Carver) 28.Neill McNeill (Long) 29 Nathaniel Smylie 30.Matthew Smylie 3l.James Campbell 32.Malcolm McNeill 33.Torquil McNeill 34.Will Stevens 35.Daniel McNeill 36.John Cameron 37.Daniel McDuffie 38.Gilbert Patterson 39.Black Neill McNeill 40.Dugal Stewart 41.Patrick Stewart 42.Malcolm Clark 43.Miles Ward 44.Samuel McGaw 45.Daniel McDougald 46.Archibald McGill 47.Neill McGill 48.John Smith 49.Neill McNeill (Little) 50.Arch'd Buie (Gum Swamp) 51.Dugald McNeill 52.Hugh Ward   MCNEILL FAMILIES >A number of McNeill families are discussed in this and other chapters of Carolina Scots....   Vicki Vicki McGlaun Culpepper McGlaughon Mail List Owner Proud Rootsweb Sponsor McGlaughon MyFamily.com site McGlauhon/McGlohon/Glohon/McGlohan/McGlaughon/MeGlaehan/McGlawn/McGlawhorn/McG laun/McGlaughn/McGlaune/McGlon/McLawhorn/ </HTML>